An editorial entitled ‘Zelensky Is Open to a Starlink Deal’ has been published in WSJ Opinion. And I completely disagree with the main message of this piece. The WSJ is proposing a deal to Ukraine: we would halt strikes on Russian energy infrastructure for 100 days, and in return the US would extend Starlink coverage approximately 300 kilometres into Russia, so that the Ukrainian army could strike missile launchers and drones. According to the WSJ, this proposal was conveyed to Zelenskyy by Republican Senators Roger Wicker and Kevin Cramer. The editorial states: “Ukraine would take a breather from striking Russian energy assets. In exchange the U.S. would expand Ukraine’s Starlink satellite coverage up to roughly 300 kilometers into Russia.” And further: “The trade by our lights is worth it.” In my opinion, no. This is not how relations between allies should look. Such a deal might at least resemble a fair one if Ukraine were given the full capacity to operate up to 470 kilometres deep into Russia, rather than just 300. Kharkiv is situated approximately 30 kilometres from the Russian border, Sumy approximately 25–30 kilometres, and Kyiv just over 200 kilometres. Meanwhile, Russia can launch missiles from territory situated considerably further than the proposed 300-kilometre zone. Therefore, 300 kilometres does not represent parity. It is yet another artificial restriction on Ukraine’s capabilities. A range of up to 470 kilometres would at least have allowed for a significant expansion of the zone within which Russian launchers could not operate with impunity. First, Starlink and Starshield – which are critically important to the Ukrainian army – are restricted without warning. Such decisions cost Ukrainian lives. Then Ukraine is offered the chance to restore or expand these capabilities in exchange for refraining from strikes on one of the most vulnerable points of the Russian military economy. This is not a deal. It is blackmail. At the same time, the WSJ itself acknowledges the obvious: “Ukraine has every right to raise the pressure on Mr. Putin to stop his conquest.” This raises a simple question: if Ukraine has this right, why should it have to pay the price of refraining from effective strikes in exchange for the ability to defend itself against Russian missiles? “But the ability to hit the Russian archer instead of letting the arrows fall is even better.” But the mere ability to strike at the “archer” must not come at the cost of security guarantees for Russian oil refineries. Ukraine needs both the ability to destroy Russian launchers and the ability to strike at the infrastructure that sustains the Russian war machine. For some reason, Russia isn’t making a choice. Why should Ukraine have to choose? Especially after Trump had already announced some sort of ‘energy truce’ – one that Ukraine and Russia had not, in fact, agreed upon between themselves – whilst Russia continued its strikes. “A frustrated Mr. Zelensky now says Ukraine will resume targeting Russian energy sites after Mr. Putin ignored Mr. Trump’s announcement last weekend of a “cease-fire” and continued to bomb Ukraine’s energy sites.” Russia is violating the ‘ceasefire’. Russia continues to strike. Yet once again, Ukraine is being asked to make concessions. No. America has been and remains our ally. The American people, Congress, the military and millions of Americans have helped Ukraine throughout the war. That is precisely why, as a matter of principle, I do not wish to equate the United States with the current administration. Through its recent actions, the current US administration is behaving not as an ally of Ukraine, but as an ally of Russia. We hope that the American political system will be able to restore relations between the US and Ukraine to a normal alliance model. Because the normal model is very simple. Russia is the aggressor. Ukraine is defending itself. An ally helps Ukraine defeat the aggressor, rather than haggling with it over the right to defend itself.